Wednesday, January 27, 2010

What will Obama do? Open Thread

What will Obama do tonight? Will he do what Clinton did and fall in line with most Americans and become more conservative like we on the right want? Or will he fall back to the left where his roots are? Obamas only friends are the left and they are that happy with him and Congress right now. He doesn't have a chance with the far right but he might gain back the Independents and the modarate Republicans if he goes a little more to the right. Will the right take him back after the way he polorized them on almost every issue other then Afghanistan. If Obama does a great speech and talks a good game but stays where he is he will have no one. Obama need to pick a side. He polorized this nation when he thought he had the supermajority. Now he has to gain back the Reagan Democrats and Independents if he wants to get anything done. He made his bed of divisive polotics and now he must sleep in it. I know I'm hopping he pulls a Bill Clinton and moves closer to the center. If he doesn't then when the Republicans make their comeback this Nov. he will be left high and dry without a friend in Congress. And will he keep blaming the Republicans for the failed health card bill or will he take one on the chin like a real man would? So will Obama piss off the progressives or the conservatives? And can we believe a word out of his mouth either way?

20 comments:

Please feel free to tell all the readers about your blog and what you do on your blog. It would be nice to hear the different kinds of blogs you have. Have fun with this open thread and play nice but speak freelly and with boldness. I run this blog with little governance and I am happy with the outcome. There are many views posting and that is a good thing. Tomorrow should be an active day on the internet. I hope the left have fun pointing out all the anicdotal things that are going on in this country. But that is just a diversion from the big things that are happening. But thanks to JoeC he will be a strait shooter and look at the big issues and tell us what he thinks.

On Wednesday night, President Obama stands before a joint-session of Congress to give his State of the Union address. To help you through it, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) once again presents Obama BINGO (http://www.atr.org/state-union-time-play-obama-bingo-a4447)!

Use the cards to check off terms and phrases likely to be used during President Obama's State of the Union address. If you get BINGO, let us know on Twitter and/or Facebook. We're always looking for new friends.

Additionally, check out the thorough analysis of Obama's first term in office by the Federal Affairs team at ATR (http://www.atr.org/analysis-obamas-first-office-a4425). They've covered a variety of topics including taxes, spending, healthcare, Stimulus, and government transparency.

Good luck tomorrow night! Don't forget if you get BINGO to let us know.

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."These are the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a historic Supreme Court decision that began with a man, a movie, and a message that bothered the bureaucratic Washington machine.

In January of 2008, as the Democratic presidential primaries between Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) were raging, filmmaker Dave Bossie set about advertising and distributing his 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie." (Full disclosure: Callista and I host and produce movies with Dave.)

The film offered a critical look at the New York senator then vying for the presidency. But Bossie was stunned when government officials from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) told him the film couldn't be aired or even advertised. Their reason? Sen. Clinton was a candidate for federal office, so Bossie's film was illegal under campaign finance law.

Bossie's production company, Citizens United, sued, claiming its First Amendment right to free speech was being denied by the government. And the Supreme Court decision announced last week was not only a vindication of the free speech rights of all Americans, it was a significant step toward dismantling the incumbent-protecting political machine created by bureaucratic campaign finance "reforms" like McCain-Feingold.

By declaring that government has no business suppressing the political speech of groups like Citizens United, the Supreme Court has begun to make it easier for middle class candidates to take on the rich and the powerful. The Bureaucratic, Anti-Freedom Model of Campaign Finance Was Wrong Citizens United v. FEC is one more piece of evidence that the model of bureaucratic campaign finance reform – of government restricting the freedom of Americans to criticize politicians rather than maximizing our freedom to question our leadership – was wrong.

The Founders understood the importance of the unfettered right of citizens to complain about their government. They recognized the danger of politicians controlling or censoring the debate about themselves. That's why they wrote in the First Amendment to the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

These words and this right have been stunningly perverted by laws like McCain-Feingold, which was explicitly a case of Congress making a law abridging our freedom of speech – of incumbent politicians attempting to censor the people's discussion of whether they should remain in office. Government Can't Limit the Ability of Associations of Citizensto Spend in Campaigns Citizens United was a great victory for free speech because it declared that government can't limit the right of corporations and unions – the "associations of citizens" Justice Kennedy refers to above – from spending freely to support or oppose candidates in elections.

It struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold law that censored corporate-funded political ads within 60 days of federal elections and within 30 days of primaries.

Although it left in place the prohibition on corporate donations directly to candidates and on the ability of corporations to coordinate their activities with candidates, it reversed an earlier high court ruling that allowed government to prevent corporations, nonprofits and unions from spending money independently to influence the outcome of an election. Making it Easier for Middle Class Candidates to Take on Incumbents The near-hysterical reaction of proponents of bureaucratic campaign finance laws such as big money fund raiser and incumbent Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) that the decision is "un-American" and "a threat to our democracy" are exactly wrong.

And thanks to McCain-Feingold imposed limits on what individuals can contribute to candidates, rich politicians who can spend unlimited amounts of their own money and don't have to worry about raising money in small amounts have a tremendous advantage.

Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) used his personal fortune from Goldman Sachs to first buy a Senate seat and then the governorship. And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg would have been defeated by a virtual unknown last November if he hadn't been able to spend his millions.

Citizens United v. FEC doesn't threaten our democracy. It strengthens it by making it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents. Real Reform Would Be Unlimited Donations Posted on the Internet But as significant as it was, the Court's decision wasn't real campaign finance reform.

Real reform under our Constitution will only come when Americans and associations of Americans are allowed to give unlimited amounts of after-tax money to the candidates and campaigns of their choice.

Donors should be given this freedom and required to post on the Internet every night what they're spending and how they're spending. That way, voters would know who is funding whom, and how much. Armed with that knowledge, Americans can be trusted to make an informed, truly democratic choice.

Predictably, just the prospect of voters making such a free and informed choice has the Washington establishment machine up in arms. Can We Trust the American People Mr. President? Yes, We Can. In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, President Obama used his weekly radio address last week to pledge to work with Congress to reverse the decision and declared: "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections" (emphasis added).

This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people.

This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers' pie.

But even more glaring than the hypocrisy is the obvious contempt that supporters of bureaucratic campaign finance have for the American people.

Ultimately, the question comes down to one of trust. Can we trust the people, and not the government, to determine our political future? The answer, Mr. President, is a familiar one:

“To Rome said Nero: ‘If to smoke you turn I shall not cease to fiddle while you burn.’” –Ambrose Bierce

For President Obama it has been a dismal year. He cannot claim victory on even a single one of his big four agendas: healthcare, the economy, the war or the environment. It seems for every step forward the Obama administration has taken two steps back.

Before you agree to wholeheartedly embrace this rumbling disaster, take note that Obama’s failures, even if they extend just another three years, are the nation’s failures and there will be consequences thrust upon us all.

Meanwhile Obama’s approval ratings continue to tank. At the crucial 100-day mark of his presidency in April 2009, 63 percent of those polled believed the President had accomplished a “great deal.” His overall approval rating, according to Real Clear Politics’ RCP Average, now stands at 49.6 percent, with 44.9 percent saying they disapprove.

With confidence in the leadership evaporating, the economy is gingerly perched on a precipice. At the same time the stock market has lost its upward momentum and could be susceptible to another crash.

“Despite the rebound of the stock market and the return to huge bonuses on Wall Street, most Americans remain mired in debt and millions of them are living in depression-like conditions,” says The Star.com. “The economy has come back far enough to reassure the wealthy and the corporate elites that things ought to return to pre-crash ways and that there is no need for radical measures of the kind they were prepared to accept during the great bailouts a year ago.”

The economy is so weak that one adult in eight and one child in four needs food stamps. Wall Street has so far ignored the three-legged table that is our economy, but perhaps not much longer.

Bear Still on the ProwlIn January the Federal Reserve reported that commercial real estate losses could reach 45 percent this year. The result of this is $1.5 trillion in commercial loans that could default.

It gets worse. Option adjustable rate mortgages have a gun at their head, with $29 billion recast higher at the end of 2009, followed by another $67 billion in 2010. Barclays Capital announced, “We expect 81% of the option ARMs originated in 2007 to default.”

If you want to know how fast this will sink Big Board stocks ask yourself this—how long does it take a gaggle of money managers to say, “Titanic?”

To date Wall Street is bragging about corporate earnings that “are not as bad as expected” and my favorite, “lower than expected” inflation. Whatever happened to the days of Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker when any inflation was bad? That inflation could be worse is like your doctor telling you that your cancer is spreading, but cheer up… it’s not spreading as fast as he anticipated.

The Obama administration has been very good at only two things: expanding the breadth of the federal government and increasing the amount of dollars.

“What we don’t know yet is… whether we have big government or small government; they’re more interested in whether we have a smart, effective government,” said the President just before his inauguration.

So far so bad says the January/February issue of The Atlantic in its cover story. “A business organization as inflexible at the U.S. Congress would have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry,” decries the magazine, adding, “The American tragedy of the early 21st Century; a vital and self-renewing culture that attracts the world’s talent; and a governing system that increasingly looks like a joke.”

Part of the problem for the Democrats is that they subscribe to the dogma of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that big government can dictate prosperity. What they will learn instead is that more money in and of itself is not more wealth.

Rome’s Spectacular Rise and Inflationary FallThe god emperors of Rome constructed their empire by implementing hard money. It financed the greatest realm the world had ever experienced.

The hard money was paid out to its armies which in turn conquered most of the ancient world. Jack Weatherford explains in his book, The History of Money, “Rome’s fame and glory came from the military and from conquest, and their riches, too, derived much more from the achievements of the army than from those of the merchants.”

As long as Rome’s legions conquered new lands, the empire thrived. But each new occupation required ever greater resources. Around 130 B.C., Rome occupied the kingdom of Pergamum. In a few years, Rome’s spending doubled from 25 million denarri (a Roman silver coin) to 50 million.

By 63 B.C., the budget grew to 75 million denarri, and spending was beginning to spin out of control. Vast strategic ambitions and social expenditures were beginning to mount.

When Augustus siezed the throne Rome was at its apex, spending rose to an astonishing 250 million denarri or 10 times what it had been 60 years earlier.

By the time the Empire had conquered Europe the cost of its army vastly exceeded the treasure it was repatriating.

Yet spending continued to climb even as revenues declined. Sound familiar?

A string of emperors grasped at an immediate solution. They began to re-mint new money with less and less silver in it.

To pay for the rebuilding of Rome after it burned Nero reduced the silver content in the denarri by a whopping 90 percent! Before long confidence in Roman money began to collapse. Eventually the Empire imploded, crushed beneath its weighty ambitions, with a mountain of debt and a debased currency.

The New RomansPresident Obama and the Federal Reserve have a much easier time of opting for inflation than Nero did. Our leaders don’t have to re-mint debased coins or even overwork printing presses. Instead they can create money out of thin air with a keystroke.

Last summer the Wall Street Journal wrote that the U.S. government has been, “flooding the market with dollars. By buying U.S. Treasuries and mortgages to increase the monetary base by $1 trillion, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke didn’t put money directly into the stock market but he didn’t have to. With nowhere else to go, except maybe commodities, inflows into the stock market have been on a tear… The dollars he cranked out didn’t go into the hard economy, but instead into tradable assets. In other words, Ben Bernanke has been the market.”

The problem is that the Obama/Bernanke bull can’t last. The creation of money is a zero sum game and alone it does not revive a fundamentally weak economy. And unless the economy itself improves—beginning with greater confidence in the dollar—the stock market is bound for a serious fall.

Last week, a combative President Obama announced his financial reform proposal, a move that will impose new restrictions on big banks and may signal an abrupt change to the way that federal regulations are applied to Wall Street.

Obama stated that large financial institutions almost destroyed the U.S. economy, because they took "huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses," according to Politico.com.

The president proposed to limit the size and scope of financial firms by restricting them from making "risky" investments. His plan will also ban banks that take deposits from trading stocks for their own profit, a change that would separate commercial banks from investment banks, Newsmax reports.

"Proposals to preemptively break up large, well-managed and well-capitalized banking companies are based on a misdiagnosis of the causes of the financial crisis," said Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum, quoted by the news source.

The stock market went into a tailspin last week following Obama’s announcement, with the Dow Jones industrial average losing over 200 points.

The president’s new regulations come on the heels of last week’s announcement that a "responsibility fee" would be applied to large financial institutions to recoup the $117 billion spent on government bailouts.

Read this article. FAILk claims that Obummer's main focus has been the economy and jobs, but then why is Schumer saying that he is "PIVOTING" to deal with jobs and the economy?!!? ROFLMAO ... good try FAILk! But you can't have it both ways!!! LOL----------------------Pols: Tri-Staters Not In Love With 'New' ObamaPresident In Deep Trouble With Middle Class; Many Think His Attempt To 'Reconnect' Shows Serious DesperationCommander-In-Chief To Present New Ideas At State Of The Union Address

Reporting Marcia Kramer NEW YORK (CBS) ―

President Barack Obama plans to use his state of the union address to "reconnect" with the middle class.

Some say it's an open admission to many here in the tri-state area that he has failed to feel our pain and our needs.

From his war on the banks -- the lifeblood of the metropolitan area economy -- to his health care reform which could cost taxpayers here over $1 billion, President Obama's policies have sent a strong message to the tri-state area that Washington doesn't care about the middle class.

Suddenly, he claims he wants to change that.

"The middle class feels beleaguered, and I think the message of Massachusetts, which I believe the president is now heeding, was pay attention to our plight. We're not as worried about changing the health care system as we are about getting by week to week," Sen. Charles Schumer said.

So at the urging of area Democrats like Sen. Schumer, President Obama will use his State of the Union address to tack to the middle -- with child-care tax breaks and student loan deferments.

But not everyone thinks the president's new found concentration on the middle class will help us here in the tri-state area -- because there is still the war on banks and insistence on health care reforms that don't help many of us.

"No, I don't see any real relief coming from Barack Obama to the middle class. I think he is still on a very liberal agenda. He's mouthing some words which maybe will play in some states but his policies are devastating to New York," Rep. Peter King said.

Congressman King said one thing that would help taxpayers in our area is a cost of living adjustment on federal taxes that takes into account how expensive it is to live here.

"If he's serious about the middle class there should be an allocation or adjustment made for people living in a high-income area, high-expense area, high cost of living area," the Republican from Long Island said.

New Yorkers seem to agree.

"Who wouldn't like to have some extra help in a place that's really expensive?" asked Tom Falcone of Queens.

"Everybody needs a little more money in their pocket. It would stimulate the economy," added John Forst of Brooklyn.

Schumer said the Massachusetts election was a wake-up call for Democrats in Washington, but only time will tell whether voters will buy the "new" Obama.

The president will get a referendum on his policies during the November mid-term elections.

Great find John and Anon. I put another climategate find up on the blog. CBO said we are on track for our national debt to double by 2020. Mind you that in 2008 the Democrats took the majority in Congress. And now that they have both houses of Congress and the White House we are seeing who the real problem makers are. "it's Bush's fault". "the Republicans made us do it". Or some other Democrat montra.

As a recent visitor to China, President Obama knows that 2009 was the “Year of the Ox.” Back on American soil, he and the union bosses think they can make 2010 the “Year of Big Labor.”

Heaven help us if we fail to stop them.

If this gang of forced unionism extremists persuades those in power to enact their agenda, our fragile economy will be crushed, our freedoms wiped out, and our political system could be hijacked for a generation.

These are just a few of the reasons why it’s vital that we have your support in 2010.

Events are moving at lightning speed, and it’s absolutely critical we start the New Year on a solid footing.

The Foundation’s strategic legal program has been winning important battles -- and you can bet 2010 will bring many more defensive battles our way.

In spite of the union bosses’ new arrogance and political might, the courts are the one branch of government they don’t yet control. That makes the Foundation’s legal program the critical last line of defense as the union bosses try to reshape America: Big Labor is trying like never before to ram through big forced unionism power grabs in 2010, including Card Check Instant Organizing, the Pushbutton Strike bill, and the Police and Firefighter Forced Unionism bill. AFL-CIO czar Richard Trumka knows right now is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

The union bosses are pressing the Obama Administration to pack the federal bureaucracy and the judiciary with forced unionism acolytes. The Foundation is working to expose these nominees.

Union lobbyists are making a full court press in state legislatures to grab more power, including efforts to eliminate or curb Right to Work laws nationwide. Their ultimate goal is repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, thereby wiping out all 22 state Right to Work laws by federal fiat.Make no mistake: The union bosses are bent on seizing new powers over America’s workers regardless of the consequences for our nation -- greater unemployment and economic devastation, a calamitous increase in the national debt, and corruption of our political system -- that will surely follow.

All across America, Right to Work is under assault by union boss power grabs that are striking a devastating blow to our economy and our freedoms.

With your help, Foundation attorneys must be prepared to file scores of new cases in 2010 against Big Labor to block new and unconstitutional laws, to stop Card Check Forced Unionism, to defend state Right to Work laws, and to prevent union bosses from seizing workers’ dues money to lobby Congress and steal the 2010 elections.

But you should be encouraged about what was accomplished in 2009. The Foundation won scores of cases in 2009, including a victory at the U.S. Supreme Court upholding state bans on union payroll deduction. And we won hundreds of thousands of dollars for employees in a union boss racketeering case that establishes a major anti-corruption precedent. The list goes on.

But without the ongoing support of concerned Americans like you, the Foundation could not stand in the breach with a proven legal strategy to defeat Big Labor’s brazen power grabs.

Without you, the Foundation’s program could not move forward.

That’s why I hope I can count on you to make a tax-deductible contribution to the Foundation right away to help us prepare for the difficult battles ahead in 2010 and beyond.

Your support is vital as we gird for battle in what could be the most difficult time for our movement in a generation.

Please send the most generous gift you can possibly afford. The Foundation’s legal program is our last line of defense. I’m anxiously waiting to hear from you.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

P.S. I need to know right away that you’ll stand with us in 2010 to protect America from alarming new forced unionism power grabs.

President Barack Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night to a deeply divided country — and a deeply divided party.

Amid plummeting polls, a wave of retirements and a sobering loss in Massachusetts, Democrats say they’re looking for leadership from the president.

But they want him to lead them in different directions.

Some want him to go down fighting on health care reform. Others say he should try one last time and then move on. Some applaud his plan for a partial freeze on federal spending. Others say it will kill the social safety net. Some say it’s time for Obama to reach across the aisle. Others want him fired up and ready to go all over again, but some wonder whether he’s lost his 2008 campaign magic.

POLITICO asked Democrats on Capitol Hill and in statehouses around the country what they want to hear from Obama Wednesday.

Here is what they said.

Show your anger

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from the central part of California, is in the frustrated crowd.

“I want to hear what he’s going to do about foreclosures and the economy,” Cardoza told POLITICO. “I want to hear what he has planned for my state. He’s barely been visible there, and as far as I’m concerned, “The Jay Leno Show” doesn’t count.

“The early parts of this administration, they had attention-deficit syndrome. They would go from one issue to the other, there was a new initiative every day, and they didn’t do the confidence building that would lead the American people in the right direction.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell wants Obama to keep amping up his newfound, more confrontational side. “I sure as hell know that if we sit around and do nothing, we’re going to get shellacked,” Rendell added. “It’s time to rock ’n’ roll.”

Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly wants the president to ditch the cool Obama: “I want to see the passionate Obama, not just the cerebral Obama.”

Talk about jobs

The half-dozen Democratic governors interviewed by POLITICO face high unemployment and crunched state budgets, and they have only one concern.

“All I care about is jobs,” Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm told POLITICO in an interview, her hand audibly banging the table. “How to get them, how to keep them, how to grow them. That’s it. That’s topic No. 1 — and topic No. 20.”

“I’ve been saying that for 15 years. If you think it’s not about jobs, ask someone that doesn’t have a job. Ask somebody that basically has one but needs to improve that job skill. You ask the people out there in the marketplace. ... If you want to give a person dignity and respect ... provide good jobs.”

If we don't push Obama and Congress back to the Porgressive majority you can kiss the Democrats goodbye come Nov. and in 2012. Anything less then progress will mean war.

Make a decision on health care damn it. And it better be the right decision.

Talk about contradictory advice. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he’d be “surprised” if Obama offers specifics on how he hopes to pass health care legislation. He admitted there are “pluses and minuses” to letting health care die.

“I think the president will speak to health care; I don’t want to imply that he will only speak about jobs and fiscal responsibility,” Hoyer said. “I think he’ll talk about both of those as major items of focus in this coming year. But there are other issues ... health care is certainly one of them.”

Rendell wants Obama to “double-down” on health care. “If we’re going to go down in 2010, let’s do something. If I’m a congressman who has lost, I want to be able to look back and say, ‘I was there. I got 30 million people health care,’” Rendell said. “Remember, Medicare was really unpopular when it passed ... and now you can’t pry it away from a senior citizen with a howitzer.”

And Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin thinks the president should “paint the picture of where we are and what’s happening to the average American out there.”

Connolly wants bipartisan outreach: “We’ve got to say, ‘Here are the six, seven, whatever elements of health care we want to get passed. [We] hope we can get some bipartisan backing; we’re willing to meet you halfway.’ And then we’ve got to move on.”

Bash Wall Street

The left wants the president to continue the populist tone and connect with Main Street by bashing Wall Street.

Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee said Obama should “balance the Wall Street voices” in his administration, like those of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and add professorial types like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Reich.

“I think the president has to indicate that he understands the nature of [voters’] concern,” McDermott said.

Keep blaming Republicans

This never gets old for some Democrats.

First, keep blaming George W. Bush.

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota: “I would say this — ‘Look, he inherited this mess, he didn’t create it.’ Somehow people have to be reminded, how did we get into this ditch? We were on the brink of global financial collapse. He wasn’t in office.”

Next, toss it back on Republicans.

“I think the president may not have fully understood how determined the Republicans were to destroy him at any cost,” McDermott said.

Say what you want

Rep. Danny Davis has faith in his fellow Illinoisan. If Obama sticks to his script, he said, “he’ll be fine.”

“My daddy used to tell us, ‘You don’t give a lot of advice because a wise man won’t need it and a fool won’t heed it,’.

The Republicans better sit down and shut up. If the Democrats don't do what we want they will have no friends to vote them in again.

And oh yeah, it doesn't matter what President Obama says tonight, Faux News will claim it was a total failure. He could suddenly get the "Midas Touch" and be able to magically turn things into gold and people would bitch about him devaluing gold. Some people just want to be complainers.

Public Policy Polling has released results showing more people trust Fox News than any other. Fox News comes out on top with 49% of the people saying they trust Fox vs. 37% saying they don’t. CNN comes in a distant second with 39% saying they trust it, but check this out 41% say they don’t! The remaining order is NBC, CBS and then ABC. Those three stations too have more people NOT trusting then trusting them.

Perhaps the Obama administration would do better, playing nice to Fox News rather than trying to marginalize them. Especially given that Fox was the most watched station during primetime in all of cable last week. That is right, I said; ALL of cable.

Dang it Anonymous, you beat me to the Fox News being the most trusted network piece! But here is the link to the story for the LIEberals who want to nit-pick: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

Drew you progressive have at it. Anon I understand. That is one of the reasons I leave it up. I get a lot of trafic from google search and the Macomb Daily and Oakland Press. Plus I would never ever cut AL off from this blog. He adds a great deal to the dialogue.

About Me

I like to Hunt,Fish,Play with my two boys,Garden,Bonsai and Learn.I used to live in Japan and miss it.I have two young boys 12 and 8 yrs. old. I've been married for over 15years. I have a greenhouse and an organic garden. We have 2 cats,one puggle and fish.